Rock, Paper, Shotgun reports hearing from players banned from playing Battlefield 3 and other EA games after being banned from the EA forums. This recalls an incident earlier this year where a player found himself locked out of playing Dragon Age II after being banned for misconduct on the BioWare forums. These bans were later lifted by EA who explained it was an error. Now they tell the tale of a few different similar incidents indicating the same policy is still being enforced. The story has an update showing EA's email response to a user explaining his "account will no longer be accessible in any way, and all property, items, and characters associated currently are or will soon be deleted," and they have reached out to EA for a further explanation. Here's their description of how he earned the ban:

Then we heard from James, whose tale is even more extraordinary. He has been permanently banned for using the word “e-peen”. (For those unfamiliar, this is short for “electronic penis”, and tends to be used to suggest someone is egotistically willy-waving.) However, he did not even introduce the word. It was in reply to someone else who’d said it, and responded, “Ah, back to the e-peen talk.” He was originally told this ban would be for 72 hours, but on Saturday received an email informing him that it was now to be a permanent ban from his Origin account, with no further explanation given. It was added that the matter was “now closed”. And, as ever, EA’s live chat and customer support are refusing to help him in any way. He’s also been told that his BF3 characters and levels will be deleted.

I see no point in buying BF3/Origin, especially after hearing on of this horror.

I understand the hatred for EA and its nonsense but BF3 is such a spectacular, wonderful, amazing game. EA and DICE finally got their stuff together with this BF release and to miss out on the greatness that is BF3 just to spite is a major loss for you.

don't bottle up your feelings advertisement minion, tell us how you really feel.(while not reading from an ea marketing release)

I see no point in buying BF3/Origin, especially after hearing on of this horror.

I understand the hatred for EA and its nonsense but BF3 is such a spectacular, wonderful, amazing game. EA and DICE finally got their stuff together with this BF release and to miss out on the greatness that is BF3 just to spite is a major loss for you.

Prez wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 22:20:If there is even a shred of truth to this story, it proves EA is about as collectively stupid as a corporation can be. If there isn't, well... nice troll anyway.

Assuming it's true, to do things like this is not only unethical and retarded, it's counter-productive to boot. Is there anyone in the world who wouldn't get the cracked version of their game that they paid for when locked out for an unrelated comment on a forum? It's practically mandating piracy in cases where it's used.

Remember, that mostly only works for single player. Something like BF3, one would have to re-buy the game to keep playing.

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.That is easy.All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.It works the same way in any country.

If there is even a shred of truth to this story, it proves EA is about as collectively stupid as a corporation can be. If there isn't, well... nice troll anyway.

Assuming it's true, to do things like this is not only unethical and retarded, it's counter-productive to boot. Is there anyone in the world who wouldn't get the cracked version of their game that they paid for when locked out for an unrelated comment on a forum? It's practically mandating piracy in cases where it's used.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 17:30:Do you know how many cheating bastards play BF3? I wouldn't doubt that you could find thousands of people who have had their accounts banned because of cheating in multiple games.

Except we know how many EA banned from cheating from BF3. They bragged about it remember? It was a HUGE number in the... hundreds.

Regardless of the details of this specific case, the policy of denying all previous purchases for breaking a code of conduct is despicable behaviour. Voting with your feet is the only thing that EA will respond to, if you disapprove of this the only way to show it is to avoid their products. Looking back, Bad Company 2 is the only EA game I can remember buying in years (and I only played that for a couple weeks)... it's actually not that hard.

I wanted to give EA/Origin a fair shake... and I did... but this is BS.

I like Steam... though their recent compromise has shaken my faith in their security. Still, hackers are jerkoffs no one can fully prepare for. This Origin/EA ban business is a POLICY, or severe lack thereof. Ugh.

ASeven wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 16:54:Well, right at the start of their article they say this:

We are receiving information from a number of gamers who have received forum bans for a variety of reasons who are finding they’re unable to play Battlefield 3 (or indeed any other game tied into the EA user account), and worse, when they try to contact EA for help sorting this out, they are either ignored or told it’s tough. So what’s going on?

So maybe that's why they are putting so much weight in James' story, because they also have many more like his, judging from their second paragraph.

Do you know how many cheating bastards play BF3? I wouldn't doubt that you could find thousands of people who have had their accounts banned because of cheating in multiple games. And I sincerely doubt that any of them would actually man up and tell the truth about why they got banned. They'd all claim to be wronged by EA, even though they know they deserved it.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible that it happened just the way James says it did. I'm saying it's piss poor journalism to post what someone tells you in an email as fact with no proof. Oh, shit, gotta run, the aliens just landed on my roof! Please tell the Times and have them report it!

Though you are absolutely right that journalists should report confirmed events and facts, how do you propose to have a regular gamer that was indeed banned to show proof? Anything he could send, pictures, videos, transcripts, could also pretty much be labeled as fake as well. Also, as unlikely the chance that James' story is valid, it's also pretty unlikely that everyone writing to RPS is a cheater or hacker as well.

They should word it in such a way to avoid stating something unsubstantiated as fact, like Blue does. For example, "No such discussion had taken place. No such “repeated” offense had occurred. Which makes the refusal to even discuss this ban somewhat problematic." should have been "James claims that no such discussion had taken place and that no such “repeated” offense had occurred. Which makes the apparent refusal to even discuss this ban somewhat problematic". This is reporting what they know for sure, that James is claiming this as fact, not that it is fact.

ASeven wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 16:54:Well, right at the start of their article they say this:

We are receiving information from a number of gamers who have received forum bans for a variety of reasons who are finding they’re unable to play Battlefield 3 (or indeed any other game tied into the EA user account), and worse, when they try to contact EA for help sorting this out, they are either ignored or told it’s tough. So what’s going on?

So maybe that's why they are putting so much weight in James' story, because they also have many more like his, judging from their second paragraph.

Do you know how many cheating bastards play BF3? I wouldn't doubt that you could find thousands of people who have had their accounts banned because of cheating in multiple games. And I sincerely doubt that any of them would actually man up and tell the truth about why they got banned. They'd all claim to be wronged by EA, even though they know they deserved it.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible that it happened just the way James says it did. I'm saying it's piss poor journalism to post what someone tells you in an email as fact with no proof. Oh, shit, gotta run, the aliens just landed on my roof! Please tell the Times and have them report it!

Though you are absolutely right that journalists should report confirmed events and facts, how do you propose to have a regular gamer that was indeed banned to show proof? Anything he could send, pictures, videos, transcripts, could also pretty much be labeled as fake as well. Also, as unlikely the chance that James' story is valid, it's also pretty unlikely that everyone writing to RPS is a cheater or hacker as well.

ASeven wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 16:54:Well, right at the start of their article they say this:

We are receiving information from a number of gamers who have received forum bans for a variety of reasons who are finding they’re unable to play Battlefield 3 (or indeed any other game tied into the EA user account), and worse, when they try to contact EA for help sorting this out, they are either ignored or told it’s tough. So what’s going on?

So maybe that's why they are putting so much weight in James' story, because they also have many more like his, judging from their second paragraph.

Do you know how many cheating bastards play BF3? I wouldn't doubt that you could find thousands of people who have had their accounts banned because of cheating in multiple games. And I sincerely doubt that any of them would actually man up and tell the truth about why they got banned. They'd all claim to be wronged by EA, even though they know they deserved it.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible that it happened just the way James says it did. I'm saying it's piss poor journalism to post what someone tells you in an email as fact with no proof. Oh, shit, gotta run, the aliens just landed on my roof! Please tell the Times and have them report it!

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 15:55:Note that RPS, like most of their media buddies, is taking people entirely on their word about this shit. James is free to write in whatever bullshit he likes and RPS posts it up as fact. I find it hard to believe that he got his entire account banned due to a forum posting. Like others have said here, there's more to the story that we aren't hearing.

What exactly are you expecting to hear from an EA representative, and how are you going to know that whatever the rep. says is true?

Honestly ... don't bother.

That's a false dilemma, there is more than the 2 extremes. RPS could report things like this Xbox report and they should not report what James says as fact. They report "No such discussion had taken place. No such “repeated” offense had occurred." as fact, whereas it is presumably solely based on what James has told them.

Thank you! I like it when people can actually use logic, it makes me think for a second that maybe we aren't doomed as a race.

Then I see my neighbors racing down the road on sleds that are sitting on top of skateboards and think "Nope, we're fucked."

We are receiving information from a number of gamers who have received forum bans for a variety of reasons who are finding they’re unable to play Battlefield 3 (or indeed any other game tied into the EA user account), and worse, when they try to contact EA for help sorting this out, they are either ignored or told it’s tough. So what’s going on?

So maybe that's why they are putting so much weight in James' story, because they also have many more like his, judging from their second paragraph.

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 15:55:Note that RPS, like most of their media buddies, is taking people entirely on their word about this shit. James is free to write in whatever bullshit he likes and RPS posts it up as fact. I find it hard to believe that he got his entire account banned due to a forum posting. Like others have said here, there's more to the story that we aren't hearing.

What exactly are you expecting to hear from an EA representative, and how are you going to know that whatever the rep. says is true?

Honestly ... don't bother.

That's a false dilemma, there is more than the 2 extremes. RPS could report things like this Xbox report and they should not report what James says as fact. They report "No such discussion had taken place. No such “repeated” offense had occurred." as fact, whereas it is presumably solely based on what James has told them.

Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 14, 2011, 15:55:Note that RPS, like most of their media buddies, is taking people entirely on their word about this shit. James is free to write in whatever bullshit he likes and RPS posts it up as fact. I find it hard to believe that he got his entire account banned due to a forum posting. Like others have said here, there's more to the story that we aren't hearing.

You definitely have a point. But it's far from the realm of not being possible. These soulless corporations with soul bearing rights now are a true wonderment of mankind's fail these days. All we know is he's being fed the wrong canned email because of a scripting error.